UK developer working on replacing heavy aircraft windows with smartscreen panels
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Somewhat cool idea, but I can not see this ever being a thing on this scale. Panels will introduce new challenges like providing adequate power and what about the cost of replacing them? How often do airplane windows need to be replaced in comparison to an OLED screen?
And then there are the security implications. Have you ever wondered why you are asked to raise the window shade for takeoff and landing? It is part procedure and part security. It allows on the ground personnel to assess a dangerous situation or see into the plane for other reasons.
My hands are sweating just thinking about it.
"According to the CPI, for every 1% reduction in the weight of an aircraft, there is a saving in fuel of 0.75%."
Now if you take the windows out of a plane you're not just losing the weight of those windows. You can probably make the fuselage out of a lighter material since you don't have to punch as many holes in it. The potential savings must be enough to warrant this research.
You have a phobia of flying. The solution isn't aircraft manufacturers accommodating that, but you seeking the right mental health services to treat your mental illness.
In-fact, I am currently in Seattle and travelled from Australia, 13 hours on a plane to LA and then 2.5 hours on a plane from LA to Seattle (with rough turbulence).
A few months ago I travelled from Australia to San Francisco on a 13.5 hour plane ride, on the way back it was close to 15 hours.
Last Christmas I took about 9 plane rides, connecting flights and a couple long distance flights. Australia to South Korea, South Korea to London, London to Paris, Paris to Rome, Rome to Poland, Poland to Germany , Germany back to London and then London back to South Korea, and South Korea back to Australia.
The reason I can fly even though I have a fear of flying is because I can choose to not see outside. A plane of panelled walls that makes it appear see through would not only freak me out, but what about others with actual mental illnesses? I think it is a foolish idea. I know people who are not afraid of flying who would be freaked out by this.
Also people have a trust problem regarding airplanes. Not the "will it crash" kind of distrust, but more a diffuse and generic feeling coming from lost baggages, delayed flights, overbooking, nickel and diming, bland food and so on. The experience is genuinely awful for most travellers. Adding things to fret about (i.e. the scenery projection is BSOD for the whole flight, we don't know if we landed or not, etc) is just asking for troubles.
Plus, as has already been mentioned, they are an important security measure for passenger flights, especially in emergency situations. That's why they ask you to lift the blinds for takeoff/landing. Fire crews are able to see inside the plane and look for smoke/flames/trapped people.
Also, even if they got it to work decently, I wonder how long it would take for the screens to be covered by ads or sitcom reruns.
People have an expectation of a certain robustness around them, and I don't believe it would be easily overcome.
Digitised systems are amenable to networking, which increases the number of options for who or what controls them. The answer is increasingly "not the user", or a gilded cage which gives the impression of user control.
As it is, a manual window provides the passenger with some control of their environment. If the airline seizes control of the window, won't this feed into a feeling of lack of control and increased anxiety in passengers?
The 787 already allows this. Flight attendants can change the window "shades" of the entire plane from a single control.
What I take issue with is the wording of the sub-heading of this story, "UK developer working on replacing heavy aircraft windows with uber-light smartscreen panels to cut fuel consumption and slash air fares".
How is the inception of this idea related to some artist/developer sitting in UK? With all due credit to the UK peoples for contribution to the field of engineering, this sub-heading is a mis-representation of facts and it seems like theguardian is simply trying to push some sort of agenda to the rest of the world.
Stats including phase of flight http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm
Now that I would pay for :)
Hackers, engineers, and those of like mind should (and do) think about things honestly, not positively. Nearly every breakthrough you read about in the news is simply bunk.
If you didn't have this attitude, you'd be fairly disappointed because dozens of times every year cancer is cured, batteries increase capacity by 50%, cheap fusion is almost here, somebody's figured out a free-energy machine... on and on and on.
The world is full of scams, gimmicks, and overexcited news outlets (and self promoting individuals) touting breakthroughs in every field. If you get excited about each one you start to look foolish really quickly.
Some truly exciting things _do_ happen from time to time, but we're pessimistic (nay, realistic) about so many things because that's just how the world is.
In this particular case, I'd judge some disruption in this area is at least plausible. Adding windows is really difficult from a material science perspective, it creates structural weaknesses that must be compensated for, and making sure those windows never blow out to some 9 sigma safety threshold must be a nightmare. In short the windows impose enormous complications and costs. Last week I flew in an Emirates A380, equipped with a variety of outboard cameras. I got by far the most interesting and beautiful views I've ever seen from an airliner, via both a big screen and the seatback screen. Not by peering out a tiny, awkwardly angled window. It's not implausible to me that this might signal a possible trend for future development.